MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199482892 · doi:10.1108/aeds-02-2021-0040

The historical development of sinology in two Canadian universities: York University and the University of Guelph

2021· article· en· W3199482892 on OpenAlex
Kenneth Lan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Education and Development Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinologyChinaGeopoliticsPolitical scienceHigher educationDisadvantageMedia studiesFace (sociological concept)SociologyManagementSocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper gives a comparative analysis of the foundation of sinology in two Canadian universities. Despite not having diplomatic exchanges, Canada's new relationship with the People's Republic of China (PRC) ignited a China interest in the Canadian academe. Through York University and the University of Guelph (U of G)'s experiences, readers will learn the rewards and challenges that sinology brings to Canadian higher education. Design/methodology/approach This paper offers an overview of the historical foundation of sinology in the Canadian academe. Who pushes through this process? What geopolitical developments triggered young and educated Canadians to learn about China? This paper assesses York and Guelph's process in introducing sinology by relying on university archival resources and personal interviews. Why was York University successful in its mission, which, in turn, made into a comprehensive East Asian Studies degree option in 1971? What obstacles did the U of G face that prohibited it from implementing China Studies successfully? Findings After 1949, Canada took a friendlier relationship with the PRC than its neighbor in the south. As China–Canada relations unfolded, Canadian witnessed a dramatic state investment in higher education. The 1960s was a decade of unprecedented university expansion. In the process, sinology enjoyed its significant growth, and both York University and the U of G made their full use of this right timing. However, China Studies at the U of G did not take off. Besides its geolocation disadvantage, Guelph's top-down managerial style in the 1960s, which resulted in collegial disillusionment, was also a significant barrier to this program's success. Originality/value Before the Internet age, universities were the first venues for most Canadians to acquire their initial academic knowledge of China. After the Second World War, sinology became popular among students as China became one of the world's “Big Fives”. More Canadians became romanticized with Maoism while opposing America's containment policy. York and Guelph exemplified this trend in Canadian history. Contrary to popular belief, historian Jerome Chen did not establish York's China Studies. Likewise, an ex-US diplomat John Melby did not bring China into Guelph, sinology arrived due to individual scholastic initiatives. Visionaries saw envisioned China's importance in the future world community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it